The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) introduces the Zero FIR as a statutory mandate through Section 173(1). Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), there was no express provision requiring police stations to register FIRs for offences committed outside their jurisdiction. The Zero FIR concept existed only as a judicial practice direction flowing from the Supreme Court's Constitution Bench decision in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of Uttar Pradesh (2014). Section 173(1) BNSS now expressly includes the words "irrespective of the area where the offence is committed," converting this judicial innovation into binding statutory law.
What changed
| Feature | CrPC Position (Old) | BNSS Section 173(1) (New) |
|---|---|---|
| FIR registration obligation | Every information relating to cognizable offence to be recorded (Section 154) | Same — plus "irrespective of the area where the offence is committed" |
| Jurisdictional requirement | FIR typically registered at the police station having jurisdiction | Any police station must register regardless of jurisdiction |
| Zero FIR | Not in statute — judicial practice direction from Lalita Kumari | Expressly codified as mandatory |
| Transfer after registration | Ad hoc — dependent on police administrative practice | FIR transferred to concerned police station having jurisdiction within 15 days |
| Electronic FIR | Not provided | Information may be given "by electronic communication" |
| Modes of complaint | Oral or in writing | Oral, in writing, or by electronic communication |
| Preliminary inquiry | Not expressly provided — Lalita Kumari allowed in limited cases | Section 173(3) expressly allows preliminary inquiry for offences punishable with 3-7 years |
Full statutory text
Section 154 CrPC (Old Law) — Relevant Extract:
(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.
Section 173 BNSS (New Law) — Relevant Extract:
(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, irrespective of the area where the offence is committed, may be given orally or by electronic communication to an officer in charge of a police station, and if given — (i) orally, it shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it; (ii) by electronic communication, it shall be taken on record by him on being signed within three days by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may by rules prescribe in this behalf.
(3) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in section 175, on receipt of information relating to the commission of any cognizable offence, which is made punishable for three years or more but less than seven years, the officer in charge of the police station may with the prior permission from an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, (i) proceed to conduct preliminary enquiry to ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case for proceeding in the matter within a period of fourteen days; or (ii) proceed with investigation when there exists a prima facie case.
Key differences
"Irrespective of the area" — the Zero FIR mandate: The six words "irrespective of the area where the offence is committed" in Section 173(1) are the statutory foundation of the Zero FIR. Any police station in India must now register an FIR even if the offence was committed in a completely different jurisdiction. Refusal to register on grounds of territorial jurisdiction is now a clear statutory violation.
Transfer timeline: Once a Zero FIR is registered, it must be transferred to the police station having actual jurisdiction. The BNSS contemplates transfer within 15 days, creating a time-bound mechanism for ensuring the correct police station takes over investigation.
Electronic communication: Section 173(1) expressly allows information about cognizable offences to be given "by electronic communication." This modernises the FIR process, enabling email, mobile applications, or online portals as valid modes of reporting. The informant must sign the electronic information within three days.
Preliminary inquiry for mid-range offences: Section 173(3) introduces a new provision allowing preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR for offences punishable with 3 to 7 years imprisonment. This must be completed within 14 days and requires prior permission of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. This provision creates a middle path — mandatory FIR for the most serious offences, preliminary inquiry discretion for mid-range offences.
Relationship with Lalita Kumari: The Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari held that FIR registration is mandatory upon receiving information disclosing a cognizable offence. Section 173(3) BNSS creates a statutory exception for certain mid-range offences, potentially modifying the absolute mandatory registration principle. The Supreme Court has acknowledged this tension and noted that the Lalita Kumari judgment was "misused a lot" — Section 173(3) represents a legislative recalibration.
What this means for practitioners
For complainants and victims: The Zero FIR mandate is the most citizen-friendly reform in BNSS. Victims of crime no longer need to travel to the police station having jurisdiction. Any police station — in any state, in any district — must register the FIR. This is particularly important for offences like kidnapping, cybercrime, or offences committed during interstate travel where the jurisdictional police station may be far away.
For police officers: Refusal to register a Zero FIR is now not merely a violation of judicial direction but a clear statutory violation. The officer in charge of the police station must register the FIR and then arrange for transfer to the jurisdictional police station. The 15-day transfer timeline requires coordination between police stations across jurisdictions.
For defence counsel: The Section 173(3) preliminary inquiry provision is a new strategic tool. For offences punishable with 3-7 years, defence counsel can argue that a preliminary inquiry should be conducted before FIR registration, potentially preventing the reputational harm of an FIR in cases that lack prima facie merit.
For cyber-crime victims: The combination of Zero FIR and electronic communication provisions is particularly significant. Cybercrime victims can now report to any police station (not just a designated cyber cell), file the complaint electronically, and have it transferred to the appropriate jurisdiction.
Does old case law still apply?
Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC 1: The Constitution Bench holding that FIR registration is mandatory upon receipt of information disclosing a cognizable offence remains the foundational principle. However, Section 173(3) BNSS creates a statutory exception for mid-range offences (3-7 years), allowing preliminary inquiry before registration. For offences below 3 years and above 7 years, the Lalita Kumari mandatory registration principle applies without modification.
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Punati Ramulu (1993) 1 SCC 412: The observations on the mandatory nature of FIR registration and the consequences of non-registration remain applicable. Section 173(1) BNSS strengthens this by adding the jurisdictional dimension — registration cannot be refused on grounds of territorial jurisdiction.
The Zero FIR concept that evolved through judicial practice is now statutory law. All High Court and Supreme Court observations supporting the obligation to register FIRs regardless of jurisdiction are reinforced by Section 173(1) BNSS.
Judicial interpretation under BNSS Section 173 (post-July 2024)
The following cases from the Veritect Legal Intelligence database show how courts are interpreting Section 173 BNSS in practice:
XXX v. State of Kerala (27 January 2026)
Court: Supreme Court of India | Bench: Dipankar Datta, Manmohan JJ. | Result: Appeal disposed of
The Supreme Court's first authoritative pronouncement on the interplay between Sections 173(4) and 175 BNSS. The Court held that a complainant seeking Magistrate direction for FIR registration against a public servant must first exhaust the Section 173(4) remedy of approaching the Superintendent of Police, and must support the application with an affidavit under Section 333 BNSS. This establishes an important procedural hierarchy that affects Zero FIR applications against public servants.
Veritect reference: Diary_8626-2025_Judgment
Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (28 March 2025)
Court: Supreme Court of India | Bench: Abhay S. Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan JJ. | Result: FIR quashed
The Supreme Court quashed an FIR and held that police must meaningfully exercise the discretion available under Section 173(3) BNSS rather than mechanically registering FIRs, particularly in cases involving free speech under Article 19(1)(a). This underscores that while Section 173(1) mandates FIR registration, the Section 173(3) preliminary inquiry provision provides a legitimate filter for mid-range offences.
Veritect reference: Diary_3511-2025_Judgment
Emerging patterns
- Procedural hierarchy before Magistrate direction: The SC has established that the statutory hierarchy under Section 173(4) — first approach SP, then Magistrate — must be followed before seeking judicial direction for FIR registration.
- Section 173(3) preliminary inquiry as meaningful filter: Courts expect police to exercise genuine discretion under the preliminary inquiry provision rather than treating all cognizable offence reports as requiring immediate FIR registration.
- Zero FIR obligation remains robust: Nothing in the post-2024 jurisprudence dilutes the core Section 173(1) mandate — any police station must register an FIR irrespective of jurisdiction.
Frequently asked questions
What is a Zero FIR? A Zero FIR is an FIR registered by a police station that does not have territorial jurisdiction over the area where the offence was committed. It is given a "zero" or temporary number and later transferred to the police station having jurisdiction for investigation.
Is Zero FIR registration mandatory under BNSS? Yes. Section 173(1) BNSS uses the phrase "irrespective of the area where the offence is committed," making it mandatory for any police station to register the FIR. Refusal is a statutory violation.
What is the Section 173(3) preliminary inquiry? For offences punishable with 3-7 years imprisonment, the police officer may conduct a preliminary inquiry (within 14 days, with DSP permission) to ascertain whether there is a prima facie case before registering an FIR. This does not apply to offences below 3 years or above 7 years.
Can an FIR be filed electronically under BNSS? Yes. Section 173(1) expressly allows information about cognizable offences to be given "by electronic communication." The informant must sign the information within three days of giving it electronically.